Artificial Sweeteners in Cooking/Baking

[Kathy]

Thanks for the recipe, Willow! I'm sensitive to soy, so I've made brownies with almond meal/flour, and a combination of golden flaxseed meal and almond flour/meal, and they turn out great.

Is xylitol as sweey as stevia or splenda? does it have any aftertaste?

Note from Gaelen: Everyone, the discussion about artificial sweeteners (uses, combinations, things that work, things that don't, how to count their carbs and the sweeteners' various effects) is an important and valuable discussion all on its own. Rather than let it overwhelm the 'Cookies' thread, where it started, I've moved all of the relevant posts here to their own unique thread. Now, back to the discussion... ;)

[Gaelen]

Willow, thanks for posting your recipe. Since all of the recipes in the forum are linked to master lists for each section, which are linked to a main recipe index in The Protein Power Kitchen, there's no need to post the recipe in two places. When the moderators see recipes that might be searchable in two places, we cross-link them within the threads and within the indices. To keep up with those indices, I merged your recipe into the "Cookies" thread with the other bar, brownie and cookie recipes. Since that thread is indexed, that's where people will be most likely to find it.

Kathy, how 'sweet' xylitol tastes is IMO an individual thing.
After four years of low carbing, it tastes artificial and too sweet to me, but I eat or use very small amounts of sweeteners of any type. Because of my low use of sweeteners for so long, my sweet tooth, despite its former three-candy-bar-per-day tolerance, can now think really good fresh berries are bordering on 'too sweet.' It's just the same reaction people who've greatly reduced or eliminated salt have when they taste prepared foods which have very high sodium content. Xylitol tastes more sweet to me than splenda or stevia, and way more sweet than sugar. YMMV. ;)

[Kathy]

Kathy, how 'sweet' xylitol tastes is IMO an individual thing.
After four years of low carbing, it tastes artificial and too sweet to me, but I eat or use very small amounts of sweeteners of any type. Because of my low use of sweeteners for so long, my sweet tooth, despite its former three-candy-bar-per-day tolerance, can now think really good fresh berries are bordering on 'too sweet.' It's just the same reaction people who've greatly reduced or eliminated salt have when they taste prepared foods which have very high sodium content. Xylitol tastes more sweet to me than splenda or stevia, and way more sweet than sugar. YMMV. ;)

Hi Gaelen,

Thanks for the reply about xylitol. I have a sweet addiction as well, and you're completely right about berries tasting too sweet at times! It's amazing when you ween yourself off of sweet things how cloying food can taste.

When I (rarely) bake, I mix stevia with a little bit of another type of sweetener to offset any bitter aftertaste. I like the tate of Shugr, which is a mixture of erythritol, maltodextrin, sucralose, and tagatose, but honestly, I'm getting to the point if I can't pronounce or spell the ingredients, I don't want to eat the food! At least stevia is natural. I do love brownies though-I may have to make Willow's recipe.

[lowcarbgirl]

Thanks for the recipe, Willow! I'm sensitive to soy, so I've made brownies with almond meal/flour, and a combination of golden flaxseed meal and almond flour/meal, and they turn out great.

Is xylitol as sweey as stevia or splenda? does it have any aftertaste?

Kathy I find xylitol to be pretty sweet and actually use less than what I posted (but most people like things sweeter and so I posted the slightly higher amount). It is supposed to go cup for cup with sugar. However YMMV. It has a pretty clean taste, maybe slightly minty to some.

I also like to use stevia with it in baking as well. The xylitol has more bulk than the stevia and so it is pretty important.

I also like to use nut flours as well; pretty much what ever I have on hand that will make a good flour.

I've baked them with with ground flax meal in the past and found them too dry. How do you compensate?

Hugs,
Willow

[mcsblues]

While certainly not wanting to get into another sweetener debate ;) (not sure why they seem to cause so much trouble!:p ) can I just say if you are going to use some sweeteners like xylitol or maltitol, while they may produce a slower glycemic response (definately a YMMV proposition) it should be born in mind that they have an total impact only slightly less than the 'real' thing (sucrose). For instance xylitol is listed at 60% (2.4g per gram - sucrose/sugar like any carbohydrate is 4g per gram) by the manufacturer (http://www.xylitol.org/) and 75% by and independent source (http://www.mendosa.com/netcarbs.htm) (3g per gram)

[Kathy]

While certainly not wanting to get into another sweetener debate ;) (not sure why they seem to cause so much trouble!:p ) can I just say if you are going to use some sweeteners like xylitol or maltitol, while they may produce a slower glycemic response (definately a YMMV proposition) it should be born in mind that they have an total impact only slightly less than the 'real' thing (sucrose). For instance xylitol is listed at 60% (2.4g per gram - sucrose/sugar like any carbohydrate is 4g per gram) by the manufacturer (http://www.xylitol.org/) and 75% by and independent source (http://www.mendosa.com/netcarbs.htm) (3g per gram)

I would never use maltitol unless I wanted to spend the day in the bathroom. The other sugar alcohols-when eaten in moderation-don't generally cause intestinal distress. Matitol is the devil IMO.

[mcsblues]

I would never use maltitol unless I wanted to spend the day in the bathroom. The other sugar alcohols-when eaten in moderation-don't generally cause intestinal distress. Matitol is the devil IMO.

Yes, but it is not only the intestinal distress that some sugar alcohols cause some people that needs to be considered here. My point was that some of these SAs (not all) do not have much benefit from a carb reduction POV.

[lowcarbgirl]

Yes, but it is not only the intestinal distress that some sugar alcohols cause some people that needs to be considered here. My point was that some of these SAs (not all) do not have much benefit from a carb reduction POV.

Malcolm,

Actually it is a YMMV thing. Some people have to count half of the grams of carb in SA's, others all and a lot of people don't have to count any at all. This is because SA's often pass through the intestine undigested (like fiber) and so the carbs don't count. Some people digest some of it, others all and some are lucky like me and don't digest any of it (so I don't have to count any of the grams of carbs from SA's). So it is a YMMV thing and for many it is a huge carb reduction when compared to sugar. :D

this is also why many of them cause stomach upset (with a few exceptions) and why I won't tuch many of them myself. :(

[mcsblues]

Malcolm,

Actually it is a YMMV thing. Some people have to count half of the grams of carb in SA's, others all and a lot of people don't have to count any at all. This is because SA's often pass through the intestine undigested (like fiber) and so the carbs don't count. Some people digest some of it, others all and some are lucky like me and don't digest any of it (so I don't have to count any of the grams of carbs from SA's). So it is a YMMV thing and for many it is a huge carb reduction when compared to sugar. :D

this is also why many of them cause stomach upset (with a few exceptions) and why I won't tuch many of them myself. :(

I'd be interested in how you know you don't digest any of the carbs in any SA - I imagine this means you have done detailed tests with a glucose meter controlling for all other variables ... and you found no difference at all between (say) xylitol and erythritol?

[lowcarbgirl]

I'd be interested in how you know you don't digest any of the carbs in any SA - I imagine this means you have done detailed tests with a glucose meter controlling for all other variables ... and you found no difference at all between (say) xylitol and erythritol?

first off I'm going to ignore the tone (sarcasm) I think I'm hearing and give the benefit of the doubt that you aren't being sarcastic, and that I'm just "hearing" it wrong (an online thing communication thing).

I never stated that all of them go undigested by everyone. It is a YMMV thing, that is how I stated it. I stated personally, that I don't digest them at all. I explain this futher below. I also know of many others (in my low carb travels) that don't. Each individuals body is different and works different with different foods. But all in all Sugar Alcohols for the majority of people are digested differntly than sugar and that was my main point.

Sugar Alcohols have been used for quite a few years (even in Atkins products) and are deducted from the net carb because they are not digested fully and are not considered to cause a rise in blood sugar. Several books and articles mention them and talk about they cause stomach discomfort and possible diarrhea because of this fact (they are passing through the intestine undigested).

Fran McCullough discusses them in her book "Living Low Carb," in some detail. I believe it is her that mentions that some people have to count them to various degrees.

Also it is and has been quite a topic on some low carb lists that I am on and the degrees that people can eat them vary as a YMMV thing.

I don't digest them. They cause me absolutely no bs spike nor do they cause me to have cravings etc... Most give me diarrhea (because I lack the ability to digest them and they have a gastric effect) and I stay away from those. Erythritol and Xylitol don't cause me this, they are the only ones. Still no spikes with them. So when I do want to make something sweet I opt for them because of their bulk in baking vs. stevia.

There is plenty of info out there on them if you are curious for more info.

Hugs,
Willow

[mcsblues]

Willow there was no sarcasm, just an honest query.

I know that people like Atkins fully discount all SAs - the Eades don't, and they don't for good reason. That reason is that most (not all) SAs are absorbed/treated like carbs to some degree as the two links I posted earlier testify. As you can see, even the manufacturer of Xylitol agrees this is the case. The Mendosa link quotes a table of tested carbohydrate and glycemic responses to a number of common SAs.

That is the reason why I asked if you had tested yourself and observed the same response with SAs that are normally absorbed as with those that aren't. As it happens it seems to be moot point for you as your experience with them means you don't use them anyway.

Either way, it brings me back to my original point - that the starting point for a number of these SAs is that they have limited benefit over the 'real' thing - at least until you test your individual response both with a bs meter and of course any possible repercussions in the bathroom!;)

I also think I mentioned that any discussion about these things seems to degenerate for some unknown reason ... but trust me, that was not my intention.

[lowcarbgirl]

Willow there was no sarcasm, just an honest query.

I know that people like Atkins fully discount all SAs - the Eades don't, and they don't for good reason. That reason is that most (not all) SAs are absorbed/treated like carbs to some degree as the two links I posted earlier testify. As you can see, even the manufacturer of Xylitol agrees this is he case. The Mendosa link quotes a table of tested carbohydrate and glycemic responses to a number of common SAs.

That is the reason why I asked if you had tested yourself and observed the same response with SAs that are normally absorbed as with those that aren't. As it happens it seems to be moot point for you as your experience with them means you don't use them anyway.

I'm glad I didn't go off on what I thought was sarcasm, because boy would I feel foolish:redface:

I understand what you are saying and I don't disagree. I was merely just trying to point out that for some there is enough of a difference between SA's and sugar, Some of us lucky ones pretty much 100% difference to maybe a 50% difference (and that is worth it when needing something sweet IMHO anyway). I was trying to say that you need to know your own body and how it responds.

I don't totally not use them, I only use 2 of them and on rare occassion. (Usually that time of the month when I need something a little sweet and chocolaty or I might kill someone :p, and even then I don't need it that sweet.)

Well this was an interesting debate/discussion to say the least. And I rather enjoyed it.

Hugs,
willow

[mcsblues]

Which two do you use?

[lowcarbgirl]

Which two do you use?

The only 2 that don't cause me problems are xylitol and erithritol. But I still only use them in very limited quantities and only in baking when I need some bulk that I can't get from stevia.

hugs,
Willow

[mcsblues]

Do you still get stomach issues with erythritol? (Because as you notice from the Mendosa table erythritol is not digested at all - or very close to it)

[lowcarbgirl]

Do you still get stomach issues with erythritol? (Because as you notice from the Mendosa table erythritol is not digested at all - or very close to it)


Erythritol is an amazing SA (IMO anyway) even though most people don't digest it, most people still don't get stomach issues with it either. I'm one of them.

Hugs,
Willow

[mcsblues]

Yes well funnily enough that is my point ;) I think "stomach issues" are a sign of digestion ar at least partial digestion ... not the reverse.

[lowcarbgirl]

Yes well funnily enough that is my point ;) I think "stomach issues" are a sign of digestion ar at least partial digestion ... not the reverse.

Here is a really good explaination of Erythritol. Then as far as I'm concerned I'm putting it to bed (and besides I know what works for me better than anyone else and don't need to defend it) And yes it is digested as you point out, but not the same way as sugar and doesn't have the same effect as sugar.


http://www.netrition.com/lowcarbsuccess_erythritol_page.html

[mcsblues]

I agree!! :lol: This is my point! It is the xylitol/maltitol that is the problem ... because it is absorbed (not because it's not):)

[LisaS]

really - I thought that sugar alcohols caused trouble when not digested/absorbed because they would travel on down the gut, pulling in water and also feeding our fermenting friends whose by-products can cause discomfort, impolite emissions and a speedy exit.

[Gaelen]

It might be semantics, but I think that part of the issue in all these discussions is that there IS a difference between a molecule short-cutting its way through the normal digestive process, molecular absorption and actual molecular digestion. The digestive process of breaking down molecules of fat, protein and carbs starts in the mouth, goes mid-stage in the stomach, and is usually finished in the small intestine. What doesn't get digested in the small intestine can do harm to the villi that protect the small intestine's lining, and can also ferment further down the digestive tract in the large intestine and colon.

According to the link lowcarbgirl included, "Erythritol is rapidly absorbed in the small intestine due to its small molecular size and structure. Several clinical studies conducted in Europe and Japan have shown that more than 90% of ingested erythritol is absorbed and excreted unchanged in urine within a 24-hour period." However, the normal human digestive process begins in the mouth and stomach, long before erythritol hits the small intestine. If it passes through the villi in the small intestine unchanged, and continues further through the body unchanged, and ultimately passes out of the body unchanged, then 'absorbed' isn't exactly the correct way to describe the process. It's not absorbed; it's just passing through.

That lack of the body's ability to break erythritol down and/or use it CAN cause problems for some people, and it can't be doing the small intestine's villi any more good than anything else that passes through them without breaking down sufficiently for the body to use. Digestion would typically break fats, proteins and carbs down into component nutrients (even smaller molecules) that the body systems could use...but manufactured small molecules skip the breakdown process, and that's where they cause trouble.

Those substances that bypass the full digestive process and are not rightfully 'absorbed' are just passing through your system, and end up being filtered out and excreted virtually intact. And yes, Lisa's correct...it's the LACK of a substance's absorption/digestion/ability to be utilized by the body that typically causes intestinal distress like gas, bloating, and stool control/formation issues...not complete digestion, but incomplete or non-existent digestion. So it follows that if you aren't having intestinal distress, that could be one sign that your body is absorbing /digesting/metabolizing some part of the molecule...or that it's passing through entirely undigested, but maybe wreaking havoc with the villi in whatever area of your intestine it passes through into the circulatory system so that it can get to the kidneys to be excreted essentially unchanged and undigested.

Just because something passes through the body and is excreted unchanged after its incredible voyage doesn't necessarily mean that it causes no damage by circumventing the digestive process--balloons full of cocaine can pass unchanged and undigested through the system, but I wouldn't recommend swallowing one! These molecules can produce digestive upset in people whose normal digestive process has already been altered by surgery, leaky gut, or other physical issues which don't like molecules that take shortcuts. 'Cause hey, it isn't NICE to fool Mother Nature. ;) YMMV, but you may wish to consider the entire digestive process and examine what small molecules passing unchanged through it can do to it, long term, on a personal basis. Or not...

[mcsblues]

Doesn't this logic suggest we should then avoid anything which isn't completely digested or used by the body - fibre, excess vitamins and minerals ... it doesn't necessarily follow that any of these are dangerous or cause harm to the intestines. In my case I use very little artificial sweeteners - but I have never had an issue with the (small) amounts of any of the ones I have tried. This would suggest to me that whether or not they are absorbed/digested or just pass through is not the issue, but perhaps some sort of allergic reaction in some people. I know that when I am exposed to a small amount of egg in something, I certainly have the sort of issues that people describe for overindulging in SAs (plus a few more!) - but this is not caused by the proteins that I am allergic to failing to be absorbed ... but I really wish it was!:)

[lowcarbgirl]

really - I thought that sugar alcohols caused trouble when not digested/absorbed because they would travel on down the gut, pulling in water and also feeding our fermenting friends whose by-products can cause discomfort, impolite emissions and a speedy exit.

Exactly :D :D :D Yea!!!! Someone who gets it :D :D :D

hugs,
Willow

[lowcarbgirl]

Gaelen,

Thanks for stepping in with such a balanced view and great advise. And I do agree with you about the points of eating these particular ones that don't break down in the digestive process and that is why I use them rarely (for the occassional baking for some bulk that stevia can't supply--and in a small amount). I can't handle Splenda--it causes me a bs spike and cravings like no tomorrow.

Sometimes there is nothing perfect and we have to accept the least damaging thing and do the best we can. Oh well :rolleyes: But for now for that occasional home baked treat (and it is rare) the only thing that works for me are the xylitol and the erythritol.

hugs,
Willow

[Gaelen]

Doesn't this logic suggest we should then avoid anything which isn't completely digested or used by the body - fibre, excess vitamins and minerals

Actually, no, Malcolm, the logic (which was mine) doesn't and wasn't intended to suggest that. What I DID suggest was "you may wish to consider the entire digestive process and examine what small molecules passing unchanged through it can do to it, long term, on a personal basis." In other words, if you already have stomach/digestive issues, leaky gut, problems with certain foods--then you might want to consider whether and how much stuff you want to eat that is incompletely or not at all digested. It's something people have to evaluate for themselves if they have other issues, but it's not necessarily something that EVERYone needs to evaluate. Why? Because I agree that not everything that is incompletely/not at all digested is necessarily dangerous...but it *could* cause harm to the intestines in some people, so you need to be alert to danger signs in yourself, and act accordingly. It's not a black and white, never-eat-this kind of situation that applies across the board, IMO...although I know lots of people would like to turn it into that. ;)

[mcsblues]

Gaelen I agree (funnily enough!!;)) and Willow I also "get it" if I hadn't already made that clear!:) But while I do understand, I don't think digestive issues on their own are indicative of how much of particular products are absorbed or affect bs. I am even more intrigued that Spenda gives you a bs spike - is this the case for splenda products without the maltodextrin filler?

[lowcarbgirl]

I am even more intrigued that Spenda gives you a bs spike - is this the case for splenda products without the maltodextrin filler?


Wouldn't know...liquid splenda isn't sold in the US and I don't drink soda, flavored waters etc....

Hugs,
Willow

[LisaS]

well, you can get concentrated liquid splenda from sweetzfree and there are the davinci syrups - essentially these are liquid splenda products too.